BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. vs NITIN KUMAR GUPTA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 5196

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 5196

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Pinki, Judicial Member
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. – Appellant
Versus
NITIN KUMAR GUPTA – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO.-318/2016

Important Points

A distribution licensee cannot shift the responsibility for delay in providing an electricity connection to the consumer based on a requirement letter unless proof of service or communication of that letter is established through documentary evidence.

Subject

Consumer Protection - Electricity Services

Act Referred

Consumer Protection Act

Headnote

The case involves the Consumer Protection Act regarding a significant delay in providing an electricity connection. The applicant applied for a connection and paid the required charges, but the connection was only provided after a lapse of more than five years. The court found that the distribution licensee failed to provide the service in a timely manner. The court framed the issue as whether the distribution licensee was guilty of deficiency in service. The court reasoned that the appellant failed to produce documentary evidence, such as postal receipts or acknowledgments, to prove that a letter requiring a fresh application under a specific policy was ever served on the applicant, and thus the responsibility for the delay remained with the licensee. The present appeal is disposed off. The impugned order is hereby modified to the extent that the interest awarded on the compensation of Rs.30,000/- shall stand reduced from 10% per annum to 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rishab Raj Jain, Sharique Hussain
For the Respondents: Jitender Gupta

Table of Content
1. summary of lower court's findings on service deficiency regarding electricity connection delay. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. appellant's contention regarding un-electrified area and policy requirements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. requirement of proof of service for communication to shift responsibility for delay. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. modification of interest rate while affirming compensation for service deficiency. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT

1. By this judgment, we shall dispose of the appeal filed by the Appellant against the impugned order dated 18.01.2016, passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Institutional Area (Behind Qutub hotel) New Delhi-110016 (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), in Complaint Case no. CC-644/2008 titled as Nitin Kumar Gupta vs. BSES Ltd. inter-alia praying for setting aside the order passed by the District Forum.

2. While the Appellant was Opposite Party before the District Forum and the Respondent was Complainant before the District Forum.

3. The facts of the case as per the District Forum, record are as under:

“By this order we shall dispose of the aforesaid complaints as all these cases pertain to the same property. In fact Sh. Jatinder Kumar Gupta is owner of property and Sh. Nitin Kumar Gupta and Sh. Manish Kumar Gupta are his sons and they have applied for electricity connection in the capacity of tenants of Sh. Jatinder Kumar Gupta.

The case of the complainant, Sh. Jatinder Kumar Gupta is that he is owner of property No. E-45 Vishwakarma Colony, Lal Kuan, New Delhi on M.B. Road, Badarpur He applied for electricity connection on 06.06.2002 in respect of the property. His application was processed and he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.26,885/- The said amount was deposited by complainant vide receipt dated 02.07.02 issued by OP. It is stated that despite making all the payment, the electricity connection was never given. Complainant visited office of OP number of times in this regard however nothing was done. Ultimately a legal notice was sent on 28.12.06 which was received with the report "refusal". It is stated that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service. It is stated that on account of non-supply of electricity, complainant could not use the property in question and thereby suffered a loss of Rs.16.50 lakh.

It is further stated that the charges for the connection could not have exceeded more than Rs.10,000/- whereas complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs 26,065.

It is prayed that OP be directed to install corinection of electricity/power/load in terms of request made by complainant against which amount is paid to OP and settle all accounts of payment received by OP and excess amount be refunded to complainant with interest and also to pay compensation for harassment caused to complainant.”

4. The District Forum after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 18.01.2016, whereby it held as follows:

“We have heard counsels of parties and carefully perused the record.

It is proved that complainant applied for non-domestic connection meaning thereby that complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act as it is nowhere stated in the entire complaint that he applied for non-domestic connection for the purpose of earning of his livelihood being a law graduate. For the first time in the rejoinder he stated so. Even otherwise he has been blowing hot and cold. On the one hand he is stating that he never received letter dated 10.1.03 while on the other hand it is contended by him that by virtue of this letter dated 10.1.03 his connection was converted from non-domestic to residential. We have carefully gone through the letter dated 10.1.03. It is nowhere stated in the letter that his request for connection is being considered for residential and not for non-domestic purpose. In the letter dated 10.1.03 s